Schools still undecided on May ballot proposal plan

School officials have less than two weeks to decide if they want to ask voters for more funding to maintain its facilities.

After talking about plans Monday night, there was no consensus among the Board of Education members.

“The challenge of going in May is there will be another proposal on the ballot asking for funding from voters in the form of a sales tax,” said school board Trustee Sean Carlson, adding that there is a benefit of placing its own request before voters at that time. “Taxpayers of Huron Valley would not have to pay $60,000 approximately to run an election.”

The state Legislature approved a package of measures in December’s lame duck session to raise money for roads as well as more funding for schools, transit and local governments. That plan requires statewide voter approval to raise the Michigan sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent.

“Lansing is going to sell this road tax as for schools,” said Jeff Long, the school board vice president.

Board Treasurer Bonnie Brown said the state sales tax is the biggest unknown. On its own, she said most people she speaks with support Huron Valley’s plan for a second sinking fund.

“I heard huge concerns of the governor’s plan to increase the sales tax,” she said. “Almost unanimously. the people told me ... they did not want to see it on the ballot with the governor’s request.”

How that sales tax will affect a May election is anyone’s guess.

Superintendent Jim Baker said the sales tax request is unlike other local elections, or even the presidential election.

“It’s a unique situation with a statewide ballot proposal going on,” he said, adding that professional surveyors who polled residents on the proposed sinking fund were unsure of the impact. “They cannot give us a gut check on what that extra proposal means.”

The district asked voters last August if they would support a 1.5-mill building site sinking fund tax for 10 years. If approved, that would have paid for various improvements throughout the district from roofing and flooring to sidewalk repair and energy efficiency. That request failed with about 58 percent in opposition.

Bigger need

This time around, school administrators are deciding if they will recommend the school board approach voters with a 10-year, 2.5 mill request.

Donna Welch, assistant superintendent of administrative services, said facility reviews show $37 million in projects are needed in the next 5 years.

“We have about $70 million we probably have to address in the next 10 years,” she added.

Local property owners currently pay a 0.9513-mill sinking fund levy, which generates about $2.1 million a year. That was approved in 2009. A 2.5-mill levy would raise another $5.4 million, Welch said.

Without additional funding, most projects would be deferred, although at a minimum Welch said $16 million in projects can’t be delayed, which focus on roofing, plumbing, mechanical, accessibility, doors and sidewalks.

“There’s still a $5.5 million shortfall. We would have to look at another source,” she said. “Right now, that’s the general fund.”

In recent years the district has used money from its fund balance – like a savings account – to balance its budget.

School board Trustee Beth Lewis was among the board members who wants to push ahead with the request.

“We should go for it in May,” she said, adding that making sure residents are aware of the election and its reasons. “A lot of it is communication. If we can get enough fliers out to tell people why we need this … it could affect their kids and grandkids in the district.”

Board Secretary Lindsay Cotter agreed.

“We have to take care of our $300 million in assets,” she said. “It’s going to be very important for us to maintain the buildings that we have. I believe our community wants us to have buildings that are safe, clean and warm for our kids. It’s just my gut.”

Long-range plans

School administrators are looking down the road, as well, anticipating the need to ask voters if they support a bond issue in 2018. If requested and approved, that would focus on technology, buses, furniture and equipment, digital learning centers, secured entrances, ball field turf and food service equipment, said Welch.

Residents approved a similar bond request in 2009, which will end in 2018.

Residents are paying 7 mills now for various building improvements dating back to 1991. Over the years, the district refinanced those bonds to lower interest rates, and most of them are expected to be paid off 2019-21.

“That will give us some relief moving on,” said Welch. “We would attempt to structure the 2018 bond proposal to have little impact on taxpayers.”

School board President Rebecca Walsh said board members also need to consider next steps if a building site sinking fund request fails again. She said she did not anticipate asking a voters a third time in the near future.

The Board of Education will make a decision on the May ballot issue at its Feb. 9 meeting, scheduled for 7 p.m. at Lakeland High School.